User Rating System

[+IceG8r]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system? I know I'd like to be able to filter out the stinkers. I was thinking of something like a star rating. Maybe something like this:

 

0 Star - Archive this pig

1 Star - I didn't hate it

2 Star - Worth the effort

3 Star - Good cache, glad I came

4 Star - Great cache

5 Star - Must see

 

Each log could show the individual rating, and the cache page could show the average.

 

Let me hear your thoughts and suggestions.

[+bittsen]

I rate the idea a one star.

[+ArcherDragoon]

It has been brought up many times before...the issue is what defines the value of each cache...

.

.

.

in other words...how does one go about quantifing the unquantifiable???

 

The star system for Difficulty and Terrain works (more/less) because there is a system in place to giving value to those items...but, my choice of a great cache will most likely differ from your choice of a great cache...

[+Castle Mischief]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

[+narcissa]

I rate the idea a one star.

 

Me too.

[+sTeamTraen]

This has been done to death a thousand times in here. My take: any rating system has to be very, very simple. Like, you either say "I liked this cache", or you don't say anything. There's no way that any individual will apply the categories listed in the OP as 2 through 5 stars consistently from one weekend to the next, so expecting the community to do it collectively is just illusory. So if we're going to have anything at all (and I vote "no"), let's just have "5 out of the 7 finders said that this cache was cool", because over time, any other system will only show averages from 3.6 (lousy) to 3.8 (outstanding) anyway.

[+IceG8r]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm going to make a u-turn on this one.

 

After railing against a rating system in many threads I am going to say go or it.

 

It may not be perfect, it may not even reflect my likes and dislikes, but if I don't like it I don't have to use it.

 

After much consideration I can't see any reason to try to deny it to those who might use it.

 

If you care enough about the issue to vote on it go to http://micropoll.com/t/KD3uGZBFOR and vote in my UNOFFICIAL off-line poll and register your yes or no. I will post the results here in 10 days.

 

Yes, that software reports duplicate votes, they will be eliminated, so don't bother!

[+IceG8r]

This has been done to death a thousand times in here. My take: any rating system has to be very, very simple. Like, you either say "I liked this cache", or you don't say anything. There's no way that any individual will apply the categories listed in the OP as 2 through 5 stars consistently from one weekend to the next, so expecting the community to do it collectively is just illusory. So if we're going to have anything at all (and I vote "no"), let's just have "5 out of the 7 finders said that this cache was cool", because over time, any other system will only show averages from 3.6 (lousy) to 3.8 (outstanding) anyway.

 

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

[+IceG8r]

I rate the idea a one star.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[+fizzymagic]

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

Excellent question. I wonder the same thing. The resistance and hostility you have encountered puzzle me, as well. There has been similar hostility expressed in previous discussions of this topic, and I can't figure out why people are so anxious to deny others useful tools to help in cache selection.

[+IceG8r]

It has been brought up many times before...the issue is what defines the value of each cache...

.

.

.

in other words...how does one go about quantifing the unquantifiable???

 

The star system for Difficulty and Terrain works (more/less) because there is a system in place to giving value to those items...but, my choice of a great cache will most likely differ from your choice of a great cache...

 

I thought I laid out a pretty simple criteria. I was hoping for other ideas.

[+IceG8r]

I'm going to make a u-turn on this one.

 

After railing against a rating system in many threads I am going to say go or it.

 

It may not be perfect, it may not even reflect my likes and dislikes, but if I don't like it I don't have to use it.

 

After much consideration I can't see any reason to try to deny it to those who might use it.

 

If you care enough about the issue to vote on it go to http://micropoll.com/t/KD3uGZBFOR and vote in my UNOFFICIAL off-line poll and register your yes or no. I will post the results here in 10 days.

 

Yes, that software reports duplicate votes, they will be eliminated, so don't bother!

 

Thanks, I voted. So far it's a landslide. 100% yes (2 votes)

[+StarBrand]

The only suggestion that I have seen that I would support is to allow cachers to add (for example) up to 10% of thier finds to a 'favorites' list. Then allow others to search for caches that have made a high percentage of finders fav list or allow us to search for caches that like minded cachers added to a fav list.

 

I think a simple star rating is far too simplistic. I would hate to see caches abondoned by owners after a few low ratings. I'd also hate to see caches being widely ignored due to lowish ratings. I am more in favor of a rating system that just lets us find caches that suit our tastes.

 

Having said all that - TPTB have recently stated that a rating system IS in the works.

Edited April 8, 2010 by StarBrand

[+Ike 13]

People are hostile because this literally comes up every week or two. Seeing the same topic over and over and over has that affect on some people.

 

I've always been in favor of some official yet optional rating system incorporated into Found it logs. It would not only help when you're searching for caches to find, but also if you're a new hider. If my new cache is only getting 2 out of 5 stars then I may want to rethink it. Some owners won't care, others will care too much. That's life.

[+bittsen]

I wasn't being hostile. I was merely giving you an indication of my thoughts on the idea and demonstrating how a rating system could hurt feelings.

 

Rating systems sound wonderful until you receive a negative rating. Then people get upset.

 

Now I would love to see a rating system where you could select a star or no star for a cache. So, a great cache would receive lots of stars but anything less than a wonderful cache probably wouldn't be rated at all. In essence you end up with two categories. OUTSTANDING caches and the rest. The rest can be anywhere from a really nice cache to a lame micro hidden in a forest among the remains of a forest toilet.

 

Having a 0-5 system creates a lot of potential for hurt feelings and little potential for awesome feelings. Remember that the cache owners hide caches to be nice. If their feelings get hurt then there will likely be less caches out there (and some will argue that as being a good thing).

[GOF and Bacall]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

 

May I ask which replies you found hostile?

 

I also think a simple rating system is a bad idea. Problem is how do you define a good cache or a bad cache. So far no one has been able to put forth a definition that everyone can agree with.

[+Markwell]

Here's another idea that I've touted for over five years. It was followed up by this post from Jeremy:

I originally read Jeremy's intent to mean that if I designated a cache as my favorite, my found log would have the little "trophy" icon - in addition to all we've talked about, not replacing the aggregate favorites. I'm not sure, but I think I read that wrong.

You got it right. I'm just considering an implementation schedule for the concept. It won't happen all at once.

 

First, you would have an area to manage your top finds.

Second, the trophy icons will show up for your logs for listings you deemed your top 10%

Third, you can use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds.

Fourth, there will be an indication somewhere on the results page indicating that it was a top 10% pick.

 

Working on First creates limited controversy (and shows your favorites to other people). Second is a bit more controversial since some people may want to rate their top list anonymously (which I disagree). Third and Fourth will cause the most controversy and should be carefully implemented.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm going to make a u-turn on this one.

 

After railing against a rating system in many threads I am going to say go or it.

 

It may not be perfect, it may not even reflect my likes and dislikes, but if I don't like it I don't have to use it.

 

After much consideration I can't see any reason to try to deny it to those who might use it.

 

If you care enough about the issue to vote on it go to http://micropoll.com/t/KD3uGZBFOR and vote in my UNOFFICIAL off-line poll and register your yes or no. I will post the results here in 10 days.

 

Yes, that software reports duplicate votes, they will be eliminated, so don't bother!

Forgot to add... please email that link on to your friends and post it in your local caching forums so that we don't just have forum regular's opinions.

[+Markwell]

I also think a simple rating system is a bad idea. Problem is how do you define a good cache or a bad cache. So far no one has been able to put forth a definition that everyone can agree with.

Personally - in my implementation suggestion I don't CARE how you define a cache as good or bad. In my scenario, aggregated data will eventually move the caches that the general population likes as being rated higher.

 

Take out the "IQ Score Distribution"

 

Caches from 95% of the population will rate their top 10% caches in alignment with the other people. Sure there will be 5% of the oddities that like caches that are on fire or sitting in the bottom of the dumpster, but in aggregate those can be disregarded. Good caches should rise to the top.

 

But I've long since given up on any implementation of a rating system. I actually first proposed one back in 2002, but we're almost 10 years into Geocaching.com - I'm to the point that I doubt it will happen.

 

Your best suggestion is to find a local group and see if they have a "must see" list or "Cache of the Month" designation.

[+Castle Mischief]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

 

I didn't say I was against some sort of ratings, or "My Favorites" system. I'm pretty sure TPTB have seen all the multitude of previous threads too and if they really wanted to implement it they just would.

[Art Carnage]

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

Ah, yes. The "take it to the forums" form letter. It's a classic!

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm going to make a u-turn on this one.

 

After railing against a rating system in many threads I am going to say go or it.

 

It may not be perfect, it may not even reflect my likes and dislikes, but if I don't like it I don't have to use it.

 

After much consideration I can't see any reason to try to deny it to those who might use it.

 

If you care enough about the issue to vote on it go to http://micropoll.com/t/KD3uGZBFOR and vote in my UNOFFICIAL off-line poll and register your yes or no. I will post the results here in 10 days.

 

Yes, that software reports duplicate votes, they will be eliminated, so don't bother!

Forgot to add... please email that link on to your friends and post it in your local caching forums so that we don't just have forum regular's opinions.

 

Oooo, tight race so far. Tied with one for "yes" and one for "no".

[+Castle Mischief]

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

Ah, yes. The "take it to the forums" form letter. It's a classic!

 

Exactly. It was not an endorsement of any kind.

[+narcissa]

I only want a cache rating system if we also have a user matching system so I can found out which geocachers are most similar to me, and filter out the caches they didn't like.

 

Not all caches are for all people, and everyone caches for their own reasons. Rating caches on a generic, linear "quality" variable is bound to be a disaster.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system? I know I'd like to be able to filter out the stinkers. I was thinking of something like a star rating. Maybe something like this:

 

0 Star - Archive this pig

1 Star - I didn't hate it

2 Star - Worth the effort

3 Star - Good cache, glad I came

4 Star - Great cache

5 Star - Must see

 

Each log could show the individual rating, and the cache page could show the average.

 

Let me hear your thoughts and suggestions.

here is a recent one.

Grading caches vs. rating them., How to distinguish the quantity from the quality?

I agree with a rating system but with a lot more detail than simple 5 star.

[+ReadyOrNot]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

 

I didn't say I was against some sort of ratings, or "My Favorites" system. I'm pretty sure TPTB have seen all the multitude of previous threads too and if they really wanted to implement it they just would.

 

It's certainly *not* trivial functionality to implement. I would guess bugs and other issues have gotten it pushed down the list, but I do believe it's on the list. Hopefully when the bugs from the last update die down, they'll get back to it...

 

It would be nice to hear from "them" and find out if it's at least still on the radar or not. It keeps getting mentioned, so I would assume it is.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

This has been asked, debated, and rejected many times in the past.

 

The reason you perceive hostility and resentment is because this subject has been brought up so many times (see above). These previous threads discussing same are available through a diligent search of the forums.

 

This is where I think you are finding the 'wall' being erected in front of you. It isn't so much that folks are being hostile or resentful of your proposal, it is that they are probably tired of it coming up every 4 - 6 months.

 

Having not wandered through the forums nor probably searched a lot, you are (unknowingly) bringing the dead to life again.

 

Not saying that your idea has no merit (actually, I am neutral on the subject), I can see both sides of the why and why-nots.

 

Should you be able to devise some method for keeping the rating system purely subjective, you may well get it to fly. BUT, others have tried -- and to date -- all have failed, and there have been many to try.

 

<Much other typing has been deleted, retyped and deleted, typed again only to be deleted>

 

I can only wish you luck in your endeavor. I must say though, I feel it is destined to die another slow death.

Good Luck.

[GOF and Bacall]

I also think a simple rating system is a bad idea. Problem is how do you define a good cache or a bad cache. So far no one has been able to put forth a definition that everyone can agree with.

Personally - in my implementation suggestion I don't CARE how you define a cache as good or bad. In my scenario, aggregated data will eventually move the caches that the general population likes as being rated higher.

 

Take out the "IQ Score Distribution"

 

Caches from 95% of the population will rate their top 10% caches in alignment with the other people. Sure there will be 5% of the oddities that like caches that are on fire or sitting in the bottom of the dumpster, but in aggregate those can be disregarded. Good caches should rise to the top.

 

But I've long since given up on any implementation of a rating system. I actually first proposed one back in 2002, but we're almost 10 years into Geocaching.com - I'm to the point that I doubt it will happen.

 

Your best suggestion is to find a local group and see if they have a "must see" list or "Cache of the Month" designation.

 

Good theory. It doesn't take into account that it will take a large number of votes to get a meaningful result. A larger number than most caches ever get in visitors.

[GOF and Bacall]

I only want a cache rating system if we also have a user matching system so I can found out which geocachers are most similar to me, and filter out the caches they didn't like.

 

Not all caches are for all people, and everyone caches for their own reasons. Rating caches on a generic, linear "quality" variable is bound to be a disaster.

 

I doubt it would be a disaster. Just a big waste of time and a roadblock to ever getting a useful system in place.

 

I would like a system that returned a list. "Other cachers who rated this cache like you did rated these other caches highly." Or some such.

[+Prime Suspect]

Oooo, tight race so far. Tied with one for "yes" and one for "no".

That can't be right. I voted 12 times.

[+ReadyOrNot]

This has been asked, debated, and rejected many times in the past.

 

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum.

 

BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system.

Edited April 8, 2010 by ReadyOrNot

[+IceG8r]

I wasn't being hostile. I was merely giving you an indication of my thoughts on the idea and demonstrating how a rating system could hurt feelings.

 

Rating systems sound wonderful until you receive a negative rating. Then people get upset.

 

Now I would love to see a rating system where you could select a star or no star for a cache. So, a great cache would receive lots of stars but anything less than a wonderful cache probably wouldn't be rated at all. In essence you end up with two categories. OUTSTANDING caches and the rest. The rest can be anywhere from a really nice cache to a lame micro hidden in a forest among the remains of a forest toilet.

 

Having a 0-5 system creates a lot of potential for hurt feelings and little potential for awesome feelings. Remember that the cache owners hide caches to be nice. If their feelings get hurt then there will likely be less caches out there (and some will argue that as being a good thing).

 

Now this is good input. My original post ASKED for suggestions.

[+IceG8r]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

 

I didn't say I was against some sort of ratings, or "My Favorites" system. I'm pretty sure TPTB have seen all the multitude of previous threads too and if they really wanted to implement it they just would.

 

I didn't take your post as negative. I actually found it informative in that I now know that this does have support.

[+IceG8r]

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

Ah, yes. The "take it to the forums" form letter. It's a classic!

 

So do you have anything USEFUL to say?

[+IceG8r]

This has been asked, debated, and rejected many times in the past.

 

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum.

 

BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system.

 

If you vote no based on the OP, are you against a rating system altogether, or just that one? I'm not married to that particular idea, I just figured I should suggest something to get the ball rolling.

[+Walts Hunting]

Are you aware that you can search forums before you post something that has been discussed so many times that the boards should have a filter that automatically deletes any topic that uses it.

 

Why does everybody think "I just thought of this and am so brilliant that I am sure noo ne else would ever come up with it so i will say it?"

[+ReadyOrNot]

This has been asked, debated, and rejected many times in the past.

 

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum.

 

BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system.

 

If you vote no based on the OP, are you against a rating system altogether, or just that one? I'm not married to that particular idea, I just figured I should suggest something to get the ball rolling.

 

I like the idea of a system where users can give awards to caches they like. The awards would show up on cache searches as well as show up as a search option.

 

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most Beatiful Hike" award

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most difficult puzzles" award

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most well hidden" award

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Ingenious Container" award

 

I think you get the drift.. The only difficulty would be determining when the award would be given to the cache. After 1 person, 2 people? 10%, 20% of visitors?

[+bittsen]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------á

 

That's about where I am

 

Edited April 8, 2010 by bittsen

[+IceG8r]

This has been asked, debated, and rejected many times in the past.

 

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum.

 

BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system.

 

If you vote no based on the OP, are you against a rating system altogether, or just that one? I'm not married to that particular idea, I just figured I should suggest something to get the ball rolling.

 

I like the idea of a system where users can give awards to caches they like. The awards would show up on cache searches as well as show up as a search option.

 

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most Beatiful Hike" award

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most difficult puzzles" award

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most well hidden" award

Show me caches that have been awarded the "Ingenious Container" award

 

I think you get the drift.. The only difficulty would be determining when the award would be given to the cache. After 1 person, 2 people? 10%, 20% of visitors?

 

I like these ideas. Agree about the difficulty though, but at least we starting to see some actual suggestions on here.

[+niraD]

If you want a simple 5-star rating system, GCVote is available as a plugin for Firefox and MSIE.

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

What Amazon does well is the "you may also like" recommendations. I find the number of stars just as useless there as in other 5-star rating systems.

 

FWIW, YouTube recently switched from a 5-star rating system to a simple liked/disliked system. Ultimately, that's all the meaningful information you're going to get when someone rates something like this. The key is to use it in a useful way, to show me caches that I'd probably like, because others who like/dislike the same kinds of caches I do have liked them.

[+IceG8r]

Are you aware that you can search forums before you post something that has been discussed so many times that the boards should have a filter that automatically deletes any topic that uses it.

 

Why does everybody think "I just thought of this and am so brilliant that I am sure noo ne else would ever come up with it so i will say it?"

 

If my post bothers you so much, why don't you just not participate in it?

 

I was asked (by GC.com) to bring it to the forum for implementation ideas.

[+dfx]

when i read the title of this thread, i thought you wanted to rate the users

[+42at42]

I wasn't being hostile. I was merely giving you an indication of my thoughts on the idea and demonstrating how a rating system could hurt feelings.

 

Rating systems sound wonderful until you receive a negative rating. Then people get upset.

 

Now I would love to see a rating system where you could select a star or no star for a cache. So, a great cache would receive lots of stars but anything less than a wonderful cache probably wouldn't be rated at all. In essence you end up with two categories. OUTSTANDING caches and the rest. The rest can be anywhere from a really nice cache to a lame micro hidden in a forest among the remains of a forest toilet.

 

Having a 0-5 system creates a lot of potential for hurt feelings and little potential for awesome feelings. Remember that the cache owners hide caches to be nice. If their feelings get hurt then there will likely be less caches out there (and some will argue that as being a good thing).

 

The cache hider should have the option if they want their cache rated. That will stop the chance at someone who is sensitive from having hurt feelings.

 

It may challenge people to make more creative hides and shoot for higher ratings.

[+StarBrand]

Repeting in new wording from above.

 

TPTB ARE already working on a rating system. So debating the merits are useless - its on the way. Debating the methodolgy is likely also useless - because its already being worked on.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

This has been asked, debated, and rejected many times in the past.

 

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum.

 

BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system.

 

Interesting that you read into what is in front of your face. Just where in there did I say that I rejected anything? I believe that my final statement was something very much like:

 

Not saying that your idea has no merit (actually, I am neutral on the subject), I can see both sides of the why and why-nots.

and:

I can only wish you luck in your endeavor. I must say though, I feel it is destined to die another slow death. Good Luck.

[+L0ne.R]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

They seem to do that all the time. I have a feeling it's a canned message that they send to anyone who emails them with a suggestion. It's like they're feeding you to the sharks.

 

Anyway, TPTB have said they are considering a rating system. That was about 6 months ago - we've heard nothing from them since. I think they're placating the masses. Sigh.

[+L0ne.R]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

They seem to do that all the time. I have a feeling it's a canned message that they send to anyone who emails them with a suggestion. It's like they're feeding you to the sharks.

 

Anyway, TPTB have said they are considering a rating system. That was about 6 months ago - we've heard nothing from them since. I think they're placating the masses. Sigh.

 

Just read Markwell's quote of an historical remark from Jeremy... so it's been almost 6 years that TPTB have been considering a rating system, not just 6 months. Sigh.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Lone R

[+Vater_Araignee]

In the few years that you've been away from the hobby, this thread has occurred several times. Some people want it, some people don't.

 

I don't think opinions either way will affect TPTB choice in implementing it or not.

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

They seem to do that all the time. I have a feeling it's a canned message that they send to anyone who emails them with a suggestion. It's like they're feeding you to the sharks.

 

Anyway, TPTB have said they are considering a rating system. That was about 6 months ago - we've heard nothing from them since. I think they're placating the masses. Sigh.

 

Just read Markwell's quote of an historical remark from Jeremy... so it's been almost 6 years that TPTB have been considering a rating system, not just 6 months. Sigh.

ouch my ribs

[+fizzymagic]

TPTB ARE already working on a rating system.

I have seen no evidence of this. TPTB have claimed to be "working on" a variety of things over the years. Just based on past experience, that is pretty weak evidence.

 

Do you have some inside knowledge the rest of us don't that this is actually being worked on?

 

I didn't think so.